Sure it is, given you used the word aggressively and negatively as an instrument aimed at me, not yourself. It has a particular meaning applied to whites. Now if I called myself one it would be a different thing, though pointless. Same with you.
Says you. But that's just the surface of the pudding.
Can't wait to find out what that means to you. [/sarcasm]
Unless you are a surgeon or part of a military or police organization you weren't part of an operation.
How so? Wait, he's Latino. Most of them aren't from Mexico you know. And many people of Latino descent are affluent too, or the sons and daughters of. The way you write it this guy sounds like a kid of one of those, posturing a little.
Because he's Latino? Because you don't like his clothing choices?
How is he making the old white guy uncomfortable? By being Latino? Maybe the older white guy was a racist. Maybe he was looking at you AND the other guy and thinking you were both out of place and worrisome. Maybe he was simply done, or agitated by something else. Who knows? Certainly you didn't. But then, you didn't need to, did you.
Having overpriced coffee might be foolish, but "up to no good" appears to largely be a creation of your imagination.
What was he doing? Anything? Or just being Latino in the "wrong" place and making old white people uncomfortable?
You rush to beat the people who are legally entitled, trained and responsible to deal with the situation so you can do what? Act out some fantasy you have in mind that were it pulled on an actual gang-banger would probably get you killed? Or was he a kid, someone obviously posturing but no real threat to you and so a perfect opportunity?
Wait, you rush to get there before the police so you can cruise by him and "look at him". And out of the blue he says that? Right. Sure.
No, but at this point you were probably cueing up your background music.
Both of which could get you put behind bars. You don't have a right to put your hands on anyone without their invitation unless you're defending yourself or someone else. Being a bully isn't that. :nono: I wonder if someone might have seen you and thought, "Yeah, that's what those people are like, always looking for a fight." Wouldn't that be hilarious?
Another second, another reason to lock you up. Two crimes in a breath or two. You're lucky you appear to have been dealing with a kid.
Alternative reading. A kid you rushed to hastle tries to puffer fish to get you out of his eyeline, you act like a bully (because there's no way he's bigger and stronger than you if he lets you do what you just said you did) break a couple of laws and he cracks, apologizes, which would indicate a basically decent sort that you misread and overreacted in relation to. How old was he?
And yet she drove away unharmed with your daughters. So he what, walked toward her car? Or toward the drive thru or who knows? Nothing in your description of his subsequent actions leads me to believe he actually meant anyone harm, however tough he might have wanted to appear.
I've spent a great deal of time at Knott's Berry Farm. Doesn't even make me an expert on the rides.
On the plus side they must be really healthy, swimming all that way. Or do you attract the homeless who can afford coach? :think:
Unless you also took his wallet I don't believe you on the age. I think you just realized how bad that looked (though not as bad as pulling a weapon on the first homeless guy) and aged him. Nothing in his act makes sense for the age you're speaking to.
Handled what? You ran toward the chance to puff up like a kid. You knew it wasn't necessary. The cops were called. That's not heroics. And nothing in the guy, whatever his age, speaks to a divergence from how I'm seeing the narrative. He was harmless. At best an attitude with nothing behind it. Otherwise he'd be in jail or you'd be dead, or both.
Another thing you don't know, a projection of your rich, inner fantasy life where you probably see high fives, free drinks, and a grateful public.
The ones you rushed to beat out so you could do your flexing to a kid who let you take off his hat and apologized for...apparently not doing anything that was actually a violation of the law.
lain:It only takes an idiot to call a Latino a "hexican".
Is this tacit admission that liberals are extremists?
So I can hardly be called inconsistent for defining terms by their plain meaning except in the case of liberals. Especially when it obviously does not mean what it plainly says.
They also call child killing a right.
What people think about themselves is irrelevant.
They're illegal. Unless you're talking about soldiers.
Those aren't automatic weapons.
What on Earth are you talking about?
I mean exactly what I said before you started debating: Liberals rename horrific ideas with nice-sounding terms. Public education, pro-choice, gun control...
Public education is a horrific idea.
Yes, it was.
I'm not a conservative.
Great.
I've spent a great deal of time at Knott's Berry Farm. Doesn't even make me an expert on the rides.
On the plus side they must be really healthy, swimming all that way. Or do you attract the homeless who can afford coach? :think:
Unless you also took his wallet I don't believe you on the age. I think you just realized how bad that looked (though not as bad as pulling a weapon on the first homeless guy) and aged him. Nothing in his act makes sense for the age you're speaking to.
Handled what? You ran toward the chance to puff up like a kid. You knew it wasn't necessary. The cops were called. That's not heroics. And nothing in the guy, whatever his age, speaks to a divergence from how I'm seeing the narrative. He was harmless. At best an attitude with nothing behind it. Otherwise he'd be in jail or you'd be dead, or both.
Another thing you don't know, a projection of your rich, inner fantasy life where you probably see high fives, free drinks, and a grateful public.
The ones you rushed to beat out so you could do your flexing to a kid who let you take off his hat and apologized for...apparently not doing anything that was actually a violation of the law.
You prince you.
It only takes an idiot to call a Latino a "hexican".
New York is still handing out one way flight tickets, at least inside the continental U.S., if the person has a connection to the new locale and can establish residence there (through family and/or a promised employment). I don't know about Hawaii. I haven't seen anything on that. I know I read an article about Hawaii considering doing it to decrease the impact of their homeless population on tourism a few years ago, but I don't know if they wen't through with it (link).
Of course not. Why would you think that?
They really don't. In point of fact, it's hard to find many people who oppose abortion out of hand. Mostly it's a matter of where the line should be drawn. For many who oppose it as an elective procedure the endangerment of the mother's life changes their position. For some it's late term pregnancies. For a few it's any point past conception. Some of that few are found in either camp, with Catholics comprising the majority of the liberal anti-abortion without exception grouping.
What you only just told me you'd proffered. I didn't recall anything outside of the issue by you but you gave the direct impression of a list to support your contention and the one isn't that. So I asked in case I'd missed it.
Does something have to be worse to be in the running? I think facilitating slaughter for no particularly good reason is pretty grotesque. That's what people who support the status quo or lesser law in relation to guns are doing, for one.
I'm not sure what that's responsive to, but it's been a busy day, so it could be me. Not sure how you sustain the last part. I don't believe you've done it, but if you can I'm game to read it.
No, the really don't. They call abortion rights what they are in this country. If they were convinced it was child killing they'd likely be on the right side of the point. That's part of the problem and name calling won't solve it.
Rather, it's everything to the person. What you or I think of anyone else is only relevant to us, but I suspect most people aren't as solidly in a camp outside of a general sense of alignment on guiding principles. A lot of qualifications after that.
They aren't made legally and are difficult to come by for a private citizen, but possible. It's complicated. Of course, with the bump stock and a semi-automatic it's a bit moot as points go.
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. The bump stock isn't a weapon at all. It's a device that transforms a weapon like the AR-15 into a de facto machinegun. My nearest neighbor to the north has one. He's a responsible guy from a good family. He collects weapons because he likes to fire them and own them. It's his hobby.
I was demonstrating that simpler isn't necessarily preferable.
And I meant what I, as gently and civilly as I could manage it, implied, which is that you're wrong on the point. Public education and gun control are both good ideas and their defense is both rational and empirical in nature. Pro-choice is a horrible idea, but it's not nice-sounding, only indicative of the root of the error for those supporting it.
The whole "nice" approach is too subjective to use meaningfully anyway.
So you said already, but saying doesn't make a thing so, let alone demonstrate it as an unassailable truth. And so I set out specifically why that isn't the case and why people on the whole, both conservative and liberal, differ with you.
In your mind perhaps, but not on the page. No quote, no link, only your declaration on the point.
You identify as a right winger. In general terms that aligns you with conservative camps, however qualified in particulars.
Another fundamental truth for some is that no one will exist beyond this life and therefore no one will give anything.
Because the assertion is that liberals tend to fight for child killing.
They really do.
So? :idunno:
You should stop responding to impressions you get and just read what I say. :up:
No.
Does endorsing car ownership also mean one "facilitates slaughter"?
It's pretty simple:
It's of no relevance what words they use or what they are convinced of.
It's worth a try. :idunno:
Nope. Not "rather."
So are you retracting your assertion about submachine guns being a problem in society?
Like I said: They're not automatic weapons.
Nobody said it was. :idunno:
Horrid things.
Which group is it that faces the accusation of using nice terms to describe horrific ideas?
Quip replied to OP, I replied to Quip. It's in the first posts.
Being "aligned" with conservatives doesn't make me a conservative.
That largely isn't what they're fighting for, which goes back to my assertion about why so many of them can be moved. Beyond that I'm not sure what position on the point isn't extreme. The assertion of right or its absence and the nature of the outcome of that argument is literally life and death. To label a group extreme for the one point doesn't make any more sense than it would to label an anarchist who supported the right to bear arms a conservative.
So you said before, but I wrote more than a simple, unsupported declaration.
It wasn't an impression. You literally wrote:
Things. As in more than one. :thumb:
Cars aren't designed to kill people and we have to have them.
Oh, then I've addressed the point. The problem is with the subjective nature of good reason, absent a serious set out of the particulars and an objective litmus.
Fundamental absolutes. Okay, that sounds reasonable.
I think you're short changing conservatives. What historically separates the fundamentalist from the conservative has been that fundamentalism tends to be used with respect to religious principle and conservatism tends to be applied to political/economical realities. That's why they tend to be the same animal, though you could be a religious fundamentalist without being a fiscal conservative, and likened variations.
You're conflating a principle and method. The real difference between conservatives and liberals isn't their valuation of the individual, but the method by which the individual is best served.
Not if you care about changing minds and moving the issue to a different conclusion.
So which is it?
I'm mostly going to stop responding to any point where you just declare a thing more than once without supporting it rationally, to save both of us time. I'll also set aside attempts to move goal posts by subtly altering an actual point transforming it into a pointless sidebar, as with your attempt on submachine guns.
You said it was simpler to just look at what a word means. I noted and illustrated that simpler isn't necessarily better or even preferable, depending.
And that is a beautiful non sequitur. Pancakes. Tilt-a-whirls. I prefer liberty. Just plug in anything, really. I've set out particular support for public education as a good, one agreed upon by the majority of conservatives and liberals, and why revisiting gun restrictions (a thing also universally agreed upon, the difference coming with particulars and by degree) are both necessary and in the service of the public good.
From you or from someone else?
Not a part of my argument. So okay.
What conservative ideas do you reject?
Everyone believes that. That's not the problem or the dividing point.
